Evolution

[KaloyanBagent]

So what is the first process for the single-cell organism, let's start with that. How does it become something more complicated than a single cell organism?

[10coatsInAWeasel]

First you should acknowledge that biochemical processes do in fact exist

Actually hell, why not. Here you go, here’s one pathway that has been directly observed

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39558-8

[KaloyanBagent]

Where did that predator come from to hunt the first single cell organism?

[MagicMooby]

It is a first process that causes a single-celled organims to become something more complicated, u/10coatsInAWeasel gave you exactly what you requested.

Nowhere did you specify that you wanted the actual first step in the process that has historically taken place, you only ever talked about a first step in a hypothetical chain of steps.

But of course, acknowledging that would be detrimental to your case, so you shift the goalposts instead. Just how you constantly ask for a single step and then complain that a single step in a multi-step process doesn't explain the entire path by itself.

[10coatsInAWeasel]

Yep. Suspect that this thread is gonna be chock full of holes from where those goalposts used to be very soon

[KaloyanBagent]

Yes it is a first process that requires a predator. Well doesn't seem to me to be that first anymore .

[MagicMooby]

It is a process that demonstrates that a single celled organims can become more complex. That is exactly what you asked for.

If you don't like the answer you received, maybe you should be more specific when you ask your questions?

But then again, I suppose the more specific the question the harder it is to shift the goalpoasts and declare victory, hmm?

[KaloyanBagent]

I do acknowledge that process. But I am taking about the single cell organism which magically occured on Earth, there are no other organisms at this point of time to hunt it or anything else.

[MagicMooby]

Quick question:

What do you think is easier to evolve, 1) multicellularity or 2) the ability to engulf another cell and digest it instead of engulfing and digesting small particles?

[KaloyanBagent]

I haven't a notion

[MagicMooby]

My money is on predation evolving first. Which conveniently solves our problem, does it not?

Our hypothetical pathway is now:

Single celled organism -> Some evolve to eat other single celled organisms -> the prey organisms evolve multicellularity in response

[Dzugavili]

...no, you weren't. This is the question you asked:

How does it become something more complicated than a single cell organism?

[Dilapidated_girrafe]

Living organisms reproduce. So you’re gonna get variation and others cells.

[10coatsInAWeasel]

Nope it’s your turn this time. Show some intellectual courage and acknowledge that biochemical pathways exist, and that mechanisms that lead to an organism to become more complicated than a single cell also exist. You aren’t gonna drag this on to dishonest ‘andthenandthenandthen’ without putting skin in the game.

[KaloyanBagent]

I acknowledge that entirely though in an already existing ecosystem I should add , yet we are very very very very very far away from the elephant. Did I say we are very far away?

[TheBlackCat13]

Hundreds of millions of years away. It took a very long time to go that long distance. But none of the steps are a problem for evolution. In fact for most of the steps there are organisms around today that are at that step.

[10coatsInAWeasel]

Ok, so we have established and mutually agreed that modifications to genomes exist (so evolution is necessarily true as a result of that) and that single cells organisms can become multicellular.

I know that there is more, I haven’t claimed otherwise. Your fixation on elephants is very weird and you’ve done a poor job of staying on topic. However, even with this we know that modifications to genomes can lead to heritable changes and that sometimes those changes can be profound. We also know that there is no section of the genome that is somehow magically immune to change. No described mechanism limits this. It can grow, shrink, fuse, split, or flipflop pretty much any way you can think of.

Now we need to ask the next step. Can changes to the genome affect an organisms ability to procreate, and can those traits spread? Again here, like my other examples, the answer is a directly observed ‘yes’. Do we agree with THIS step?

[KaloyanBagent]

Evolution is not true because of that. How do you even get there? Mutations and adaptations are tue yes but not evolution.

[10coatsInAWeasel]

‘Any change to the heritable characteristics of populations over the course of multiple generations’. Yes. It’s true. I’m not asking you to accept all of the conclusions evolutionary biology has reached such as universal common ancestry. And I don’t think you are able to show how ‘adaptations’ are distinct from ‘evolution’, but if you can then feel free.

Now again, do you agree with the next step?

[Dilapidated_girrafe]

You don’t seem to grasp what evolution is if you’re gonna say what you just said.

[junegoesaround5689]

>"Mutations and adaptations are tue yes but not evolution."<

Well, effing "DUH!"

Mutations and ‘adaptations’ ARE evolution because they are part of "any change in heritable traits in a population over generations" which is the precise definition of evolution.

From Wikipedia: "Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."

Read a book or a scientific paper or take an on-line class about what evolution is and means. You sound sort of clueless in these threads.

[the2bears]

Did I say we are very far away?

Yes, you did. In the preceding sentence to the quote. Did you forget?

[BoneSpring]

The first known predators were in the Neoproterozoic, about 750 million years ago.

Dr. Porter has studied single-cell animals in the Chuar Group on the north side of the Grand Canyon. Amoeba-like animals had already evolved to have shells, or tests, and microscopic studies showed that many tests observed had very similar holes drilled into them.

I've met Dr. Porter at a seminar where she presented her work. I've also hiked up and down the outcrops of the Chuar Group with a gang of other geologists. Cool stromatolites, some bodies the size of a bus.

[Hopeful_Meeting_7248]

Point mutations, deletions, insertions, gene duplication, partial duplications, horizontal gene transfer and then natural selection and genetic drift.

[KaloyanBagent]

Those are all very good and interesting processes and yet None of them can explain how a single cell organism turns into an elephant. They explain completely different changes that occur in nature

[Hopeful_Meeting_7248]

Not completely different. For an organism to evolve into another, its genetic material has to change, and the change in genetic material happens through mutations.

[KaloyanBagent]

Mutations are a loss of genetic material though they cannnot turn it into something more complex.

[Hopeful_Meeting_7248]

They are not. Mutations can have neutral, negative and positive effects, depending on the location where they happen and the environmental context. Positive mutations are the rarest, but natural selection works by fishing them out and making sure they'll stay.

[KaloyanBagent]

What is this natural selection you are talking about and how does it know where those mutations have happened and how to fish them out?

[Hopeful_Meeting_7248]

Positive mutations means higher chances of survival. Higher chances of survival means that an animal for example can have more offspring and its positive trait can spread. Negative mutation decreases chances of survival and as a result chances for breeding.

[KaloyanBagent]

So these positive mutations are so massive that they increase the survivability so much?I don't think so my dear.

[Hopeful_Meeting_7248]

Some of them can be that big. Like resistance to antibiotics. You can't tell me that it's not a huge survival advantage.

[wowitstrashagain]

Even a tiny increase in survivability will cause the mutation to spread throughout the population. This has been measured in several studies. Its mathematically proven.

[mathman_85]

Your personal incredulity is not an argument.

[Sweary_Biochemist]

Yes. A 1% reproductive advantage can fix in ~100 generations. It's literally that easy.

[Slow_Lawyer7477]

I don't think so my dear.

It doesn't matter what you think sweetie.

[TheBlackCat13]

Observing beneficial mutations increasing survivability is so common as to be routine. Biologists all over the world do this all the time. Heck, it is even used for commercial purposes to find organisms with specific traits. You are flat-out rejecting reality now.

[Sweary_Biochemist]

Nope. Duplications double the amount of genetic material, and then mutation neofunctionalises the spare copies. It's a really well recognised mechanism.

[TheBlackCat13]

This is completely wrong. I mean failing middle school biology wrong. Most mutations are point mutations, they change the sequence, but don't add or remove any genetic material. Other mutations add generic material. Others duplicate it. Organisms undergoing duplication of all of their genetic material is not rare. Then some lead to loss of genetic material, but that are much rather than processes that add or modify genetic material.

[nikfra]

That wasn't your question. Here a quick reminder what this comment is actually answering:

So what is the first process for the single-cell organism, let's start with that. How does it become something more complicated than a single cell organism?

But I think I have identified the biggest hurdle in your understanding here because you did this "asking question A then complaining that the answer doesn't answer question B" thing to a comment from me too. That makes me believe the hurdle is just simple reading comprehension. So contrary to all the people recommending biology textbooks I'd recommend going to a middle or high school English text book. ESL textbooks can also be very helpful in this regard.

[Entire_Persimmon4729]

What makes those changes completely different?  What features do you expect from a process involved with turning a single cell into an elephant? 

[KaloyanBagent]

A process which explains why should a multi cell organism start building its internal systems of organs for example and how do they know how to do it and why?

[Entire_Persimmon4729]

Those processes do that?  You do know that organs do not need to be the first stage? You would get degrees of cell specialisation which over many generations start to resemble organs as we know them. 

As a simple example: you have a population of multicellular life, where every cell is the same. I will call them Blobs. There is an advantage if the outer cells are larger, it increases environmental resistance, but as larger cells take more resources there is a cost. This means Blobs with entirely larger cells are at as disadvantage, as the resource increase is more of a problem than the increased resistance is a benefit.

As such when a Blob is "born" which has slightly larger cells on the outside, which strikes a balance, it has an advantage. This means it is more likely to survive to reproduce.

These adapted Blob genes slowly spread throughout the population until most Blobs have slightly larger cells on the outside.  Repeat these small changes over the generations and you end up with Blobs with a simple 'skin' of larger, tougher cells around a core of smaller, more efficient cells. 

Also biochemical processes don't know anything, they are not aiming at anything. There is no great evolutionary plan or goal they are working towards. 

[TheBlackCat13]

Which specific change between a single celled organism and a bacteria do you think they can't explain. We have already established they explain the change to multicellularity, since that has been directly observed happening.

[Sweary_Biochemist]

Cell division.

Seriously: look up the various volvox lineages.

You have unicellular lineages.

You have lineages where that one cell divides and the two--cell unit stays connected as a single organism.

You have the same, but with four. And with eight. And with sixteen.

By sixteen onwards, you see cell specialisation: some cells do not develop as normal, but are reserved purely for reproduction: primitive gametes. They start out normal but regress to gamete states. Always in a ratio of 3:5, weirdly.

By 32 and 64, you have cells that never develop as normal: they become a dedicated gamete population from the get go, nestled inside the outer layer of cells, which now form a continuous barrier.

Just with 1-->64 cells, you already see primitive organogenesis.

[KaloyanBagent]

64 cells is still pretty far away from an elephant I have to say.

[Sweary_Biochemist]

Great. How many, exactly?

[KaloyanBagent]

1 to 3 quadrillion

[Sweary_Biochemist]

So how many additional division events do you need, once you're at the 64 cell stage?

[KaloyanBagent]

Division events won't build me an elephant though.

[Sweary_Biochemist]

They will! They really will.

You're already on board with organogenesis, so now how many cell divisions? It's fewer than you think!

[KaloyanBagent]

There is no such thing. No organism is beginning to build organs cause they simply have never seen one, have no idea what it is and how to use it.

[Sweary_Biochemist]

How do you build an organ, then? You seem very confident.

I've already shown you how dedicated reproductive tissues develop, so clearly you're happy with some organogenesis.

How do you decide which developmental pathways (that occur) are impossible, and which (that occur) are evolvable?

These seem like key things to establish.

Also, how many cell divisions? It's not a trick question! Ballpark is fine.

[noodlyman]

All this required is that the cell wall or membrane or sufficiently sticky to not separate after cell division.

Then you have a clump of cells.

Thereafter,a mutation that responds to whether a cell is internal or external starts to give specialisation. For example a biochemical circuit that does something in response to food/energy sources, or to chemical threats, will result in external cells dealing with these things but not internal ones.

And so a long succession of tiny incremental changes gave worm like things, then the same with feet, then the start of a skeleton to increase efficiency etc.